EDINBURGH, Scotland — After centuries of war with England, politicians in this stately city signed away Scotland’s sovereignty in the early 1700s for the promise of riches and the glory of empire. Three hundred years later, resurgent nationalists here are plotting a new rebellion to win it back.

Appealing to the force of tartan pride, the Scottish National Party won surprise control of the regional Parliament last year, which thrust the separatist fantasy of hearing “Scots Wha Hae” on the bagpipes as the national anthem into the realm of distinct possibility. The British government, boxed into a precarious corner, has opened formal negotiations with the Scots to set a date for an independence referendum.

Scotland’s independence crusade is emerging as the greatest threat to the cohesion of the United Kingdom since Ireland achieved independence — a ­three-decade process that culminated in 1949, when Ireland left the Commonwealth.

Scotland won the right to a “devolved” Parliament in the late 1990s and has sweeping powers over, for example, its judicial system and government spending. But full independence would give the SNP the authority to fulfill a wide array of pledges, including expelling the British nuclear fleet from Scottish waters, withdrawing from NATO and unwinding Scottish regiments from Britain’s military forces overseas. It would also give politicians in Edinburgh the freedom to vote separately from — and perhaps counter to — Britain in world bodies such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.

As in any divorce, a break with Britain could also set up an economic scuffle — particularly over the lucrative rights to North Sea oil, seen as key to the prosperity of the Scots on their own.

The push here is being watched with nervous eyes across Europe, particularly in countries that have long struggled with powerful separatist movements, such as Spain and Belgium. At the same time, the prospect of an independent Scotland is sending shockwaves through Westminster, the seat of the British government in London.

Fearing a diminished voice in global affairs and an irreparable split in modern Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron this month launched his own battle to win the hearts and minds of the Scots. “I believe that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are stronger together than they would ever be apart,” Cameron declared here this month in a landmark speech for British unity. “Something very special is in danger. The danger comes from the determination of the Scottish National Party to remove Scotland from our shared home.”

His fiercest foe: Alex Salmond, Scotland’s deft political Braveheart and chief of the SNP. The party’s impressive track record in government and its efforts to protect the Gaelic language and teach the battles of Scottish history in schools have touched a nerve in a voting base physically distant and culturally apart from London, the British capital that sits geographically closer to Amsterdam and Brussels than Edinburgh.

In a move that could maximize the emotional appeal of independence, the SNP is pushing for a vote in 2014 — the 700th anniversary of the legendary Battle of Bannockburn that saw the English Army famously routed in the First War of Scottish Independence. London, meanwhile, is pressing for a ballot as early as next year to settle the issue once and for all.

“For the Scots, this is going to be decided 80 percent from the heart and 20 percent from the mind,” said Alistair Hunter, a 54-year-old nationalist working for the city of Edinburgh. “I tell ye, I’m not the kind to wear a kilt at weddings, but I am Scottish before I am British. and I know a good many of us want our rightful independence back.”

Courting celebrities

Here in Scotland, the campaign on both sides is raging from the chilly highlands to the glass offices of modern lowland cities. It is a fight being waged via bumper stickers, street graffiti and informational pamphlets, as well as in a tug of war for backing from renowned Scots, including musician Annie Lennox (a high-profile convert to the independence side) and author J.K. Rowling (publicly undecided; both camps want her under their spell).

Though polling in the past has shown core support for independence at about 30 percent, the most recent surveys indicate a race that is too close to call. Still, analysts say more Scots appear to favor remaining part of Britain — a union of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland — than favor independence. One compromise being floated by London could cede more autonomy to the Scots in areas such as taxation, though a concrete offer would be made only if a referendum on independence fails.

At the same time, the nationalists are moving to make the notion of independence more palatable, calling it a natural progression from already devolved powers that would not deeply alter Scotland’s fabric of life. Like Canada and Australia, an independent Scotland would, for instance, keep Queen Elizabeth II as its constitutional monarch. Nationalists say they would maintain the British pound — a currency already printed with Scottish images such as Brig o’ Doon and Edinburgh Castle for distribution in Scotland.

The undecideds include 30-year-old Laura Martin, who bantered with an SNP campaigner on her doorstep on a recent afternoon. “Look, I do think it’s a nice idea, I am proud of Scotland,” said the homemaker, as her two young children peered curiously from behind her skirt. “But aren’t we just too wee to survive alone?”

No, insist the nationalists, who argue that an independent Scotland would be the world’s sixth-richest nation as measured by income per person. With an economy larger than Denmark’s and a population of 5 million, they maintain, an independent Scotland would be a tartan utopia always able to afford the kinds of progressive perks already enjoyed by the Scots but not the English — including free university education, prescription drugs and home health care for the elderly.

That dream, however, is based on one big calculation: North Sea oil. Most agree that a majority of energy reserves in Scottish waters would need to be ceded by the British to make independence viable. But with analysts predicting the North Sea could be depleted by the 2030s, even a predominant share of that revenue might buy the Scots only a few decades to come up with an economically sustainable plan.

A bit surreal

Still, there is no questioning the movement’s progress. As recently as the 1960s, Scottish independence was a relatively fringe cause. But resentment of London grew during the conservative Thatcher era of the 1980s and intensified during the Iraq war. With the Conservatives’ Cameron in charge in London, for many largely liberal Scots, even the “devolution” vote in 1997 that gave them autonomy on many issues is no longer enough.

“I’ve had colleagues even from universities in northern England come up and say, ‘You Scots aren’t going to go and leave us with that lot in London, are ye?’ ” said Tom Devine, a University of Edinburgh scholar considered one of the world’s leading Scottish historians. “I’m not saying yet that independence is probable, but what is surprising so many of us now is that independence is actually a possibility.”

In staging a referendum, the British and the SNP remain at loggerheads over a few key points, including the exact wording and number of ballot questions and whether 16- and 17-year-olds — who are seen as more likely to support independence than older Scots — will be allowed to vote.

But what scares unionists most is that the three traditional British parties — Labor, Conservative and the Liberal Democrats — have lost credibility in Scotland in recent years, with no definitive Scottish voice emerging to champion the cause to stay within Britain. That has left Cameron, largely unpopular with the Scots, to lead the charge.

For the English living in Scotland, all the talk of independence still seems a bit surreal. On a visit to the site of the historic Battle of Bannockburn, depicted in the film “Braveheart,” Peter Whitham, 48, the English husband of a Scottish wife, frowned as he heard his son chasing his sister with a play sword, yelling “I’ll get ye, ye English coward!”

“The point is that we shouldn’t be Scottish or English before we are British,” Whitham said. “Come on. We’re living in 2012.”

We applaud this effort at nation building, this struggle for freedom, for independence, for democracy, for the right of self-determination, for these people to test their might and choose their destiny, to live in the liberty they've won for themselves, and God willing may they be able to create the outer haven of enduring freedom that all men strive for in their pursuit of happiness. We love your adherence to democratic principles and to the democratic process, and we will not leave you in isolation. It's morning again! Mike Durant, we won't leave you behind! Truth, freedom and justice are the foundations that guide us all! God bless us all and may God... save the Queen.

Scottish independence is so very much not my choice since I'm only distantly and slightly related to Scotland. But it would kind of make me sad, because I think the Scots have been a big, important component of what made Britain a worthwhile and significant country. I think that here, the whole of the culture has been greater than the sum of its parts.

It also makes me sad to think that the traditional British political parties haven't been able to reach out, or haven't tried to reach out, to the (definitely still around) Scots who want to be part of Britain.

I find it amusing that they forget (or choose to) that James VI ascended to the English throne and formed the union. Ok, fine, that Scottish dynasty gave us a civil war and a king so bad we asked the Dutch to invade us, but that's irrelevant. They came to us, not the other way round.

I find it amusing that they forget (or choose to) that James VI ascended to the English throne and formed the union. Ok, fine, that Scottish dynasty gave us a civil war and a king so bad we asked the Dutch to invade us, but that's irrelevant. They came to us, not the other way round.

So...this is less of a "We want freedom!" and more of a "It's not you, it's me" on a national level?

I find it amusing that they forget (or choose to) that James VI ascended to the English throne and formed the union. Ok, fine, that Scottish dynasty gave us a civil war and a king so bad we asked the Dutch to invade us, but that's irrelevant. They came to us, not the other way round.

But then, that Scottish dynasty was bounced off the throne, and Scot-backed attempts to put it back on the throne were utterly defeated, in ways that created much bitterness in Scotland on account of all the redcoats with guns marching around killing people.

So all in all, I'd call that a tie, at best.

I'd guess that what's affecting the modern Scot nationalists the most is the sense that the ruling party in Britain is indifferent to them. Going from past threads here, we've already seen how the Tories are following the Thatcherite tradition of 'solving' economic crisis by leaving the worse-off and more remote from London parts of the country to rot.

I'm Scots and don't think we'd be better off under Independence. I just do not like or trust Salmond, like a lot of politicans he strikes me as a condescending, patronising git. I had that feeling about Tony Blair when he first appeared, thinking you can't trust someone who's constantly grinning. Salmond does that as well.

He fails to see where the economic side will come from. For instance he stands on a strong no-nuclear stance, whether for the Trident subs based at Faslane or nuclear power. If Scotland became independent, Faslane would have to be vacated unless a deal could be reached with England on basing rights, something that I can't see them doing. Think in the jobs that would be lost at the base itself, the armaments depot at Coulport and connected civilian jobs.

Windfarms despite what some may say don't seem to be the big white hope and already the country is getting infested with them. At the same time Salmond seems to be crawling to people like Trump who want to put people off their homes so he can open his golf course (something Scotland has plenty of already).

The Whisky side is also not a guaranteed money maker as a lot of the distilleries and brands are owned by foreign companies. Someone on SB said that they could revive the Scottish shipbuilding industry which is laughable as the only larger scale shipyards left are the two BAE yards ats Scotstoun and Govan. If Scotland became independent, it's likely that BAE, an English based company would eventually transfer its operations to English towns which were formerly shipbuilding areas.

Jade, I'd like to check my own speculation with you- that part of what's giving the Scots nationalists a boost lately is the way that the UK government has 'dealt with' the recession's effects on much of Britain by basically ignoring them.

Well the SNP have had a majority in the Scottish Government for some time. I think there was some dissastifaction both with Labour, and except for a small number of places like parts of Edinburgh, the Tories had no real chance of getting in. There were a few minority parties like Solidarity and the Scottish Socialists, but they were a bit of a joke. I think some people voted SNP rather than the two big parties. Lib-Dems don't seem to have much presence up here. This pre-dates all the banking carry on.

This strikes me as monumental populist stupidity. If Scotland were to vote for the rebuilding of Hadrian's wall then I suspect they would wake up with a hangover and ask themselves why they did such a stupid thing for.

Windfarms despite what some may say don't seem to be the big white hope and already the country is getting infested with them.

Could you have a link about it? The reasons will be rather interesting.

Quote:

Someone on SB said that they could revive the Scottish shipbuilding industry which is laughable as the only larger scale shipyards left are the two BAE yards ats Scotstoun and Govan. If Scotland became independent, it's likely that BAE, an English based company would eventually transfer its operations to English towns which were formerly shipbuilding areas.

The Defense Secretary Liam Fox declaried that they won't get any RN orders after independence back in last July. Some other items like mass closing of military bases are on the table too.

I'd guess that what's affecting the modern Scot nationalists the most is the sense that the ruling party in Britain is indifferent to them. Going from past threads here, we've already seen how the Tories are following the Thatcherite tradition of 'solving' economic crisis by leaving the worse-off and more remote from London parts of the country to rot.

That's been my concern about this since they started pushing for a referendum. Don't get me wrong, if a clear majority of the people of Scotland express a desire for independence then that is their right. But I do worry that they might be doing it for the wrong reasons.On the other hand, the alternative is having faith that things will get better after the next General Election, so who am I to criticise? I'm getting out while I can.

Joined: 2010-01-07 07:39pmPosts: 635Location: the land of tea and crumpets

Anyone help me on the economic front? Do the SNP want to join the Euro? If so I suspect as the years roll on people will back away from "independence" if they get worried about becoming Ireland Mk2 - where Ireland has a few diversified businesses (IT & Pharma), Scotland has oil.

As a British resident for 3+ years, I find the idea of breaking the Union misguided, but I've never lived more than 50 miles north of London.

I find it amusing that they forget (or choose to) that James VI ascended to the English throne and formed the union. Ok, fine, that Scottish dynasty gave us a civil war and a king so bad we asked the Dutch to invade us, but that's irrelevant. They came to us, not the other way round.

Remember when the main character in the movie Braveheart, loosely, really loosely, based on the Scottish chieftain and military leader William Wallace, shouted "Freedom!" at the top of his lungs? Although the real Wallace defeated the English in 1297 at Stirling Bridge, he was captured in 1305 and hanged (but not until he was dead), drawn (four horses pulling his body apart in different directions) and quartered (just what it sounds like) for "treason" by the English.

It probably won't come to that in the early 21st Century. But a more formidable successor to Mel Gibson exists in the person of Alex Salmond, the current First Minister of Scotland, leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and its majority in the Scottish Parliament. Just about everybody in the United Kingdom seems to agree, whether they like him and his policies or not, that Mr. Salmond is an extraordinarily astute, charismatic, and dynamic political leader. He is currently engaged in a high-stakes interaction with the British Government and its political leadership to have a referendum, sometime in the next couple of years, on whether or not Scotland should leave the United Kingdom and become an independent country.

Well. As with all such disputes, it arises for domestic reasons which need not concern the United States and those responsible for, and interested in, U.S. foreign and national security policy. We may not be able to affect the process overtly, and doing so would almost certainly be counterproductive. But that doesn't mean that some very important questions need to be asked about what the implications of Scottish independence would be for US national defense. Let's start with general issues.

First, Scotland has been a part of the United Kingdom since 1707, when the "Act of Union" was enacted by Parliament. That alone means something. What would it say to American policymakers if our closest ally, one with whom we have been linked in peace and war since we entered World War I in 1917, suddenly broke apart after over 300 years of political unity? What would it say about the internal cohesion of whatever rump UK remained after Scotland left? Would Wales -- which, arguably, has much more linguistic and cultural differentiation from England than Scotland -- be next? Would moves for Northern Ireland's independence from the UK, and union with the Republic of Ireland, be re-energized, with possible attendant violence? Or, more broadly, would a disintegrating United Kingdom be considered as reliable a partner?

There are some more pointed questions that American policymakers might start thinking about. Mr. Salmond has on occasion stated that he favors having the UK retain control over foreign and defense policy, but this scarcely squares with his also stated desire to eventually have all nuclear weapons -- that is, British ones -- out of Scotland, and his stated support for establishment of a "Scottish defense force" that would include the Scottish regiments of the British Army. (As a fair chunk of the enlisted soldiers, and most of the officers, of Scottish regiments, aren't Scottish, this might not work out too well, but I digress.)

What would be the foreign policy of an independent Scotland, as it appears that Mr. Salmond in fact wants to have his own defense policy? Would it join NATO? How much, if at all, would it cooperate with the armed forces of a truncated United Kingdom? With the armed forces of other Western democracies, including, but not limited to, those of the United States? Would it cooperate with the British intelligence services in the maintenance of internal security against terrorism in the British Isles? Would it cooperate with other countries' intelligence services, including those of the United States? Would it look more leniently on the presence of embassies and diplomatic representatives, and their activities, from anti-American and anti-Western states such as North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela? Mr. Salmond and his Scottish Nationalist Party, and the dominant political culture in Scotland, is quite far to the Left, for a variety of internal reasons that don't matter here. This doesn't augur well for a positive answer to any of these questions. It suggests that we have to consider that, a la the Republic of Ireland, Scotland might well be aggressively neutral, and avoid involvement all kinds of Euro-Atlantic collective security agreements that have been so important in maintaining European stability since 1945.

Finally, what would Scottish independence, and what it implies about the long-term political stability of the UK, say to American economic interests? To Americans, Great Britain is not, say, velvet-divorced Czechoslovakia, and certainly not Doonesbury's Brzrkrstan. It is viewed as a bedrock of political stability that underlies a willingness to invest in a country. It could scarcely be considered such if Scotland left it. Moreover, Mr. Salmond has made all kinds of statements about the need for an independent Scotland's economic policy to shift sharply to the Left, not something guaranteed to invite foreign investment.

The people of the current United Kingdom will ultimately decide, one way or another, actively or passively, about Scottish independence. But that doesn't mean that Americans don't have a strategic stake in it. Scottish independence may or may not be a good idea for Great Britain as it is currently constituted. But there are good reasons for us to think that it might not be too good for us.

Salmond is being fairly sneaky about this, as broadly the support seems to be for staying with England - despite the SNP being elected, it wasn't because of his platform of independence it was in spite of this, and mainly about Scotland:a) despising the Tories andb) hating Labour almost as much

Which is why the big fight at the moment is over when the referendum happens - Westminster offered to let him have it in 2012, but only if he makes the decision on the ballot a clear Yes/No - then they'll allow it to be binding. Salmond however wants to wait for 2014, when he'll put 3 options on the ballot, in an effort to split the 'No' vote.

I'm not exactly seeing how Scotland will get along anyway, they've got more chance of actually physically seperating from England than being given the North Sea oil and most of the things they enjoy (free education, no pharmacy bills etc) are because England pumps money up there instead of native taxation being responsible.

It hardly seems to matter if the rest of mr Salmond's politics are left or right leaning, when his chief policy is to drop a live grenade in the boat it hardly matters if you jump over the Starboard or Port railing.

Salmond is being fairly sneaky about this, as broadly the support seems to be for staying with England - despite the SNP being elected, it wasn't because of his platform of independence it was in spite of this, and mainly about Scotland:a) despising the Tories andb) hating Labour almost as much

I despise the tories and hate labour almost as much, unfortunately I live in England.

I'm English, but my father's side of the family is Scottish. I hope Scotland doesn't secede, as it would make visiting my aunt and cousins marginally more awkward. I remember being pretty hurt as a child when I supported Scotland in their sporting endeavours whilst my relatives were of the "anyone but England" camp quite often. It's not like they can blame it on the clearances and redcoats either, they originally come from Yorkshire!

I'm just wondering what Argentina makes of all this. Do they support Scottish independance from the hated Inglés, and risk supporting our point about self-determination in the Falklands, or continue to deny an people their democratic rights to self-determination and make sure Britain can still call on some damn fine scottish soldiers?

I'm not exactly seeing how Scotland will get along anyway, they've got more chance of actually physically seperating from England than being given the North Sea oil and most of the things they enjoy (free education, no pharmacy bills etc) are because England pumps money up there instead of native taxation being responsible.

Of course, England also pumps oil and gas down (and has done for twenty years). I seem to recall a study somewhere that suggests if scotland had split off when the oil was discovered, it'd have a higher gdp now then England:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Scotland%27s_oil - source 16

Which is why the big fight at the moment is over when the referendum happens - Westminster offered to let him have it in 2012, but only if he makes the decision on the ballot a clear Yes/No - then they'll allow it to be binding. Salmond however wants to wait for 2014, when he'll put 3 options on the ballot, in an effort to split the 'No' vote.

Hmmm. Just speaking hypothetically here, but how certain can we be that the Conservatives will actually abide by any assurances that the referendum will be binding? To the best of my knowledge, there's nothing much in British law to stop them vetoing it by Act of Parliament or making up a bunch of excuses about vote irregularities, or even just saying, "So... you know how we said we'd make it binding? We lied."

Largely the oil revenue Scotland has to share with the rest of the union is counteracted by the fact Scotland has received much more taxpayers money than it’s proportionally entitled to.

Scotland’s hopes of becoming an oil rich socialist paradise like Norway however are a bit fragile considering the North Sea is running dry. We'll see who pays for all Scotland’s excesses when the oils gone.

Quote:

I'm just wondering what Argentina makes of all this.

Their probably cackling evilly with glee. The weaker the union gets the more likely they get to take the islands and its oil. Alternatively if Britain lost all its North Sea access then the Falkland fields might become much more important to it. I don't see a Fawklands war 2 coming anytime soon however considering the state Argentina is in.

Quote:

Do the SNP want to join the Euro?

[English nationalism] One of the reasons the SNP is so popular relative to the other parties is they don’t really have that many actual policies other than England bashing [/English Nationalism]. When the recent independence debate started it became very clear Sammond hadn’t actually thought that far ahead and he more or less had to make up policy on the spot. The Scottish people like the rest of the UK is highly negative about the euro so there was immediately talk about keeping sterling, which doesn’t really make much sense when your declaring independence to get away from those pesky English.

In reality they would probably have to join the euro as the UK government would not be keen to let them keep the pound, although Osbourne never gave a clear answer when asked he at least hinted he wouldn’t let Scotland keep the pound.

Quote:

I hope Scotland doesn't secede, as it would make visiting my aunt and cousins marginally more awkward.

Even if they do get independence I doubt we’d see border controls reinstated, there would be no point to it, not to mention a waste of money. Sammond might want to rebuild Hadrians wall to keep the English out though.

Quote:

"So... you know how we said we'd make it binding? We lied."

No referendum like that would be binding on parliament, but if the Scottish people have clearly shown a desire for independence there wouldn’t be much point in not giving it to them, it would only cause trouble. It would be interesting if for example the independence vote only won by a small margin however, that could easily be argued as lacking a mandate for such a large and far reaching change, by the Tories or anyone else.

I'm just wondering what Argentina makes of all this. Do they support Scottish independance from the hated Inglés, and risk supporting our point about self-determination in the Falklands, or continue to deny an people their democratic rights to self-determination and make sure Britain can still call on some damn fine scottish soldiers?

Quote:

Argentina is to attempt to forge an alliance with an independent Scotland as part of its campaign to claim to the Falkland Islands, it has been reported.

As Alex Salmond makes plans for a referendum on independence, Argentina is considering sending a delegation of officials to Scotland.

According to The Sun, president Cristina Kirchner's political aide Carlos Kunkel said yesterday: "We are analysing the possibility of sending a delegation."

I think the likelihood of the scots voting for independence is negligible. Salmond is a very smart politician and knows this - he'll be trying to cut a deal to give the Scots more devolved powers instead.

I prefer this 'news source' which says an independent Scotland might make claim to the islands as they were named after a Scottish viscount . Who knew the Iranians would be so in the know about the Falklands and the evil English oppression of the poor Scots.

Countdown to a joint Irish, Argentinean and Iranian invasion of Scotland to liberate it from the Anglican threat in...

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum